RSA-2600-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA Raghbir Singh State of Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. for the Mr. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. 1. The present regular second appeal is preferred again decree dated 23.07.2019 whereby the civil suit filed by the decree dated 05.08.2022 judgment and de District and Sessions FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE 2. Brief facts of the case as per civil suit from Govt. High School, Sunderpura on 31.03.2006 as Headmaster and remained in service on the post of Social Study Master on temporary basis in the scale of Rs 220-400. H joined at GPS Zadpur Block Jhajjar and his pay was fixed regular appointment 22 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-2600 Date of Reserve Date of Pronouncement Raghbir Singh vs. Haryana & ors. HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Mr. P.K. Rapria, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Harish Nain, AAG, Haryana *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA J. The present regular second appeal is preferred again 23.07.2019 passed by learned Civil J whereby the civil suit filed by the appellant 05.08.2022 whereby the appeal judgment and decree dated 23.07.2019, was also dismis and Sessions Judge, Rohtak. FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE Brief facts of the case as per civil suit High School, Sunderpura on 31.03.2006 as Headmaster and remained in service on the post of Social Study Master on temporary basis in the scale of He was appointed as SS Master on regular basis on 07.07.1973 PS Zadpur Block Jhajjar and his pay was fixed regular appointment, by counting previous temporary service, same was fixed at IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2600-2022 (O&M) Reserve:- 15.09.2025 Pronouncement:-29.09.2025 ......Appellant vs. …..Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA The present regular second appeal is preferred against judgment and ivil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak appellant was dismissed and judgment and filed by the appellant against was also dismissed by learned Additional Brief facts of the case as per civil suit are that the appellant retired High School, Sunderpura on 31.03.2006 as Headmaster and remained in service on the post of Social Study Master on temporary basis in the scale of was appointed as SS Master on regular basis on 07.07.1973. PS Zadpur Block Jhajjar and his pay was fixed @ Rs. 228/- and on his counting previous temporary service, same was fixed at 1 …..Respondents judgment and Rohtak and judgment and against the dditional retired High School, Sunderpura on 31.03.2006 as Headmaster and remained in service on the post of Social Study Master on temporary basis in the scale of . He and on his counting previous temporary service, same was fixed at GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2600-2022 Rs.236 and further circular dated 27.11.2006 vide which pay of General Category employees fixed at par with Supreme Court of India. appointed on regular basis on 09.0 01.01.1979, whereas Prem Singh stood at seniority No. 6043 as on 01.01.1979. The appellant was drawing one increment higher than Prem Singh at the time of regular appointment of Prem Singh. Headmaster on 04.08.1988 due to Accelerated Seniority/Accelerated Promotion Scheme of Government vide which reserved category employees superseded even senior employees of General Category. The pay of Prem Singh was fixed on his promotion in the scale of Rs.2000 the scale of Rs.1400 on 22.06.2004 in the grade of Rs. 7500 Rs. 10000/- per month. General Category employee date of their promotion to the next higher post at par with promoted earlier 05.03.2009 and it was also decided by the Government that the official/officer will be entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances from the date of their juniors belonging to reserved categor will be admissible to them from the date of actual promotion in their respective cadre. Accordingly, the appellant was at par with his junior counter parts of with notification dated 18.12.2013. same cadre in the scale of Rs.220 22 (O&M) Rs.236 and further to Rs.244 on 28.09.1974. Government of Haryana issued ated 27.11.2006 vide which pay of General Category employees with juniors of reserve category on the basis of order of Supreme Court of India. The appellant belongs to General category appointed on regular basis on 09.03.1973 and stood at seniority No. 4577 as on 01.01.1979, whereas Prem Singh stood at seniority No. 6043 as on 01.01.1979. was drawing one increment higher than Prem Singh at the time of regular appointment of Prem Singh. Prem Singh was promot Headmaster on 04.08.1988 due to Accelerated Seniority/Accelerated Promotion Scheme of Government vide which reserved category employees superseded even senior employees of General Category. The pay of Prem Singh was fixed on his in the scale of Rs.2000-3500, whereas, the scale of Rs.1400-2600. The appellant was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 22.06.2004 in the grade of Rs. 7500-12000 and per month. This Court vide order dated 18.11.2008 held that the General Category employees are entitled to step promotion to the next higher post at par with promoted earlier. The position was further 05.03.2009 and it was also decided by the Government that the official/officer will be entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances from the date of their juniors belonging to reserved categories were promoted and actual benefit of arrear of pay will be admissible to them from the date of actual promotion in their respective Accordingly, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay at par with his junior counter parts of reserved category employees in accordance with notification dated 18.12.2013. Both the employees were initially appointed in same cadre in the scale of Rs.220-400 and Prem Singh Rs.244 on 28.09.1974. Government of Haryana issued ated 27.11.2006 vide which pay of General Category employees juniors of reserve category on the basis of order of Hon’ble the belongs to General category and was 3.1973 and stood at seniority No. 4577 as on 01.01.1979, whereas Prem Singh stood at seniority No. 6043 as on 01.01.1979. was drawing one increment higher than Prem Singh at the time of rem Singh was promoted to the post of Headmaster on 04.08.1988 due to Accelerated Seniority/Accelerated Promotion Scheme of Government vide which reserved category employees superseded even senior employees of General Category. The pay of Prem Singh was fixed on his 3500, whereas, appellant was drawing pay in was promoted to the post of Headmaster 12000 and his pay was fixed vide order dated 18.11.2008 held that the entitled to step up in their scale of pay on the promotion to the next higher post at par with their juniors who were further clarified vide notification dated 05.03.2009 and it was also decided by the Government that the official/officer will be entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances from the date of their juniors were promoted and actual benefit of arrear of pay will be admissible to them from the date of actual promotion in their respective entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay reserved category employees in accordance employees were initially appointed in 400 and Prem Singh was much junior to 2 Rs.244 on 28.09.1974. Government of Haryana issued ated 27.11.2006 vide which pay of General Category employees was Hon’ble the and was 3.1973 and stood at seniority No. 4577 as on 01.01.1979, whereas Prem Singh stood at seniority No. 6043 as on 01.01.1979. was drawing one increment higher than Prem Singh at the time of ed to the post of Headmaster on 04.08.1988 due to Accelerated Seniority/Accelerated Promotion Scheme of Government vide which reserved category employees superseded even senior employees of General Category. The pay of Prem Singh was fixed on his pay in was promoted to the post of Headmaster is pay was fixed as vide order dated 18.11.2008 held that the scale of pay on the were clarified vide notification dated 05.03.2009 and it was also decided by the Government that the official/officer will be entitled to the benefit of pay and allowances from the date of their juniors were promoted and actual benefit of arrear of pay will be admissible to them from the date of actual promotion in their respective entitled to the benefit of stepping up of pay reserved category employees in accordance employees were initially appointed in much junior to the GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2600-2022 appellant and more than 15 years of services. However, Prem Singh superseded in the pay scale due to accelerated promotion on the post of Headmaster. 31.03.2006 with his last drawn basic pay of Rs. drawn pay was filed civil suit for declaration along with consequential relief of mandatory injunction by claiming that he was entitled to notional promotion as w.e.f 04.08.1988 the scale of Rs.2000 of his junior of reserve category along with consequential benefits of revised fixation and arrears @18% per annum on withheld amount/delayed payments of pay and pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The civil suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed on the ground that recovery of arrears and interest period of limitation for recovery of benefit is 03 years in Limitation Act. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled for recovery of 03 years from the date of filing of the suit i.e 03.07.2018 decree @9% per annum and further interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree till the actual realization, vide judgment and 23.07.2019 passed by lear 3. Thereafter, State of Haryana as well as appellant filed appeal against judgment and Division), Rohtak before learned A The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the State was allowed. Hence the present regular second appeal. 22 (O&M) and the appellant had been drawing higher pay than Prem Singh more than 15 years of services. However, Prem Singh superseded in the pay scale due to accelerated promotion on the post of Headmaster. 31.03.2006 with his last drawn basic pay of Rs. was likely to be more than Rs.26,000/ filed civil suit for declaration along with consequential relief of mandatory injunction by claiming that he was entitled to notional promotion as w.e.f 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh in of Rs.2000-3500 as on 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 i.e the date of promotion of his junior of reserve category along with consequential benefits of revised xation and arrears @18% per annum on withheld amount/delayed payments of pay and pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The civil suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed on the ground that recovery of arrears and interest after pay fixation and consequential benefits, the period of limitation for recovery of benefit is 03 years in Limitation Act. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled for recovery of from the date of filing of the suit i.e 03.07.2018 decree @9% per annum and further interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree till the actual realization, vide judgment and passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Thereafter, State of Haryana as well as appellant filed appeal against judgment and decree dated 23.07.2019 passed by learne Rohtak before learned Additional D The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the State was allowed. Hence the present regular second appeal. had been drawing higher pay than Prem Singh more than 15 years of services. However, Prem Singh superseded in the pay scale due to accelerated promotion on the post of Headmaster. The appellant retired on 31.03.2006 with his last drawn basic pay of Rs.24,470/- per month, whereas, his likely to be more than Rs.26,000/-approximately. Therefore, he filed civil suit for declaration along with consequential relief of mandatory injunction by claiming that he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh in 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 i.e the date of promotion of his junior of reserve category along with consequential benefits of revised xation and arrears @18% per annum on withheld amount/delayed payments of pay and pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The civil suit filed by the appellant was partly decreed on the ground that for after pay fixation and consequential benefits, the period of limitation for recovery of benefit is 03 years in Limitation Act. Therefore, the appellant was held entitled for recovery of arrears and interest for from the date of filing of the suit i.e 03.07.2018 till the passing of the decree @9% per annum and further interest @6% per annum from the date of passing of the decree till the actual realization, vide judgment and decree dated unior Division), Rohtak. Thereafter, State of Haryana as well as appellant filed appeal against passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior District and Sessions Judge, Rohtak. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the State was allowed. Hence the present regular second appeal. 3 had been drawing higher pay than Prem Singh for more than 15 years of services. However, Prem Singh superseded in the pay scale retired on per month, whereas, his Therefore, he filed civil suit for declaration along with consequential relief of mandatory Head Master and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh in 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 i.e the date of promotion of his junior of reserve category along with consequential benefits of revised xation and arrears @18% per annum on withheld amount/delayed payments of pay and pension, commutation of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc. The for the after pay fixation and consequential benefits, the period of limitation for recovery of benefit is 03 years in Limitation Act. arrears and interest for till the passing of the decree @9% per annum and further interest @6% per annum from the date of ree dated Thereafter, State of Haryana as well as appellant filed appeal against unior Rohtak. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and the appeal filed by the State GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2600-2022 SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES 4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends t the appellant has wrongly been dismissed by learned A Sessions Judge allowed. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed. 5. Learned Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648, UHBVNL, passed in CWP No. 4166 Ahmad vs. Ministry of Defence, 2021 (1) High Court Cases (Del) 413 6. Per contra, learned counsel appeal filed by the State has rightly been allowed and Sessions J dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case with ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD 8. It is admitted fact that the appellant Master on 24.02.1971 promoted to the post of Head Master on attaining the age of that one Prem Singh who was junior to him was appointed on Social Study Master on 6 months basis and his services were regularized on 01.01.1980. He was promoted Government Policy under the reserve category. The claim of the appellant in the suit was that as per Haryana Government Policy, he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master w.e.f. 22 (O&M) SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant contends t the appellant has wrongly been dismissed by learned A udge, Rohtak and the appeal filed by the State has wrongly been He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon judgment Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648, UHBVNL, passed in CWP No. 4166-2016, decided on Ahmad vs. Ministry of Defence, 2021 (1) High Court Cases (Del) 413 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent appeal filed by the State has rightly been allowed and Sessions Judge, Rohtak. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole ecord of this case with their able assistance. ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD It is admitted fact that the appellant Master on 24.02.1971 and his services were regularized on promoted to the post of Head Master on 22.06.2004 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The claim of the appellant in the civil suit was that one Prem Singh who was junior to him was appointed on Social Study Master on 6 months basis and his services were regularized on . He was promoted as Head Master on Government Policy under the reserve category. The claim of the appellant in the suit was that as per Haryana Government Policy, he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master w.e.f. SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal filed by the appellant has wrongly been dismissed by learned Additional District filed by the State has wrongly been He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be allowed. counsel for the appellant relies upon judgments in case of Union of India and others vs. Tarsem Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 648, Balwant Raj vs. 2016, decided on 20.09.2022 and Naseem Ahmad vs. Ministry of Defence, 2021 (1) High Court Cases (Del) 413. for the respondent-State contends that the appeal filed by the State has rightly been allowed by learned Additional District Rohtak. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole It is admitted fact that the appellant was appointed as Social Study and his services were regularized on 07.07.1973. He was 22.06.2004 and retired on 31.03.2006 . The claim of the appellant in the civil suit was that one Prem Singh who was junior to him was appointed on 03.10.1972 Social Study Master on 6 months basis and his services were regularized on as Head Master on 04.08.1988, as per Haryana Government Policy under the reserve category. Prem Singh retired on 30.06.20 The claim of the appellant in the suit was that as per Haryana Government Policy, he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master w.e.f. 4 the appeal filed by istrict and filed by the State has wrongly been in case of Balwant Raj vs. and Naseem that the istrict Rohtak. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole was appointed as Social Study . He was 31.03.2006 on . The claim of the appellant in the civil suit was 03.10.1972 as Social Study Master on 6 months basis and his services were regularized on as per Haryana 30.06.2006. The claim of the appellant in the suit was that as per Haryana Government Policy, he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master w.e.f. GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2600-2022 04.08.1988/23.08.1 entitled to pay fixation Rs.2000-3500 as on 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 consequential arrears along with interest w.e.f. 9. Admittedly, Prem Singh was junior to the appellant and he was promoted as Head Master w.e.f 04.08.1988 was promoted as Head Master on the appellant on promoted to the post of Head Master and retired on declaration to the effect th w.e.f 23.08.1988 action accrued in the year 2004 when he was promoted whereas he filed civil suit in the year 2018 i.e after 14 years required to be filed within 03 years from the date when the right first accrued. The cause of action in the present case accrued to the appellant before his retirement i.e before 31.03.2006 10. The judgments referred to above cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates to issue of pensionary benefits wherein the Courts held that cause of pensionary benefit is recurring cause therefore there c 11. In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for stepping up of his pay/scale of pay on his deemed date of promotion at par with his junior counter par junior of reserve category therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the judgments referred to by learned counsel for the appellant. 22 (O&M) 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 and he would be deemed to be promoted entitled to pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh in the pay scale of 3500 as on 04.08.1988/23.08.1988 consequential arrears along with interest w.e.f. Admittedly, Prem Singh was junior to the appellant and he was promoted as Head Master w.e.f 04.08.1988 under reserve category. The appellant was promoted as Head Master on 22.06.2004. The first cause of action accrued the appellant on 04.08.1988 when Prem Singh who was junior to him, was promoted to the post of Head Master. The appellant was promoted on and retired on 31.03.2006. He filed civil suit on 02.07.2018 declaration to the effect that he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master w.e.f 23.08.1988 and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh. The cause of action accrued in the year 2004 when he was promoted whereas he filed civil suit in the year 2018 i.e after 14 years, whereas as per required to be filed within 03 years from the date when the right first accrued. The cause of action in the present case accrued to the appellant before his retirement i.e before 31.03.2006. Therefore, the civil suit filed by him was clearly time barred. The judgments referred to above cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates to issue of pensionary benefits wherein the Courts held that cause of pensionary benefit is recurring cause therefore there c In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for stepping up of his pay/scale of pay on his deemed date of promotion at par with his junior counter par junior of reserve category. He is seeking pay fixation at par with his jun therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the judgments by learned counsel for the appellant. and he would be deemed to be promoted and would be at par with his junior Prem Singh in the pay scale of and that he was also entitled to 04.08.1988/23.08.1988. Admittedly, Prem Singh was junior to the appellant and he was under reserve category. The appellant . The first cause of action accrued when Prem Singh who was junior to him, was . The appellant was promoted on 22.06.2004 . He filed civil suit on 02.07.2018 seeking relief of at he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh. The cause of action accrued in the year 2004 when he was promoted whereas he filed civil suit whereas as per Limitation Act, the suit was required to be filed within 03 years from the date when the right first accrued. The cause of action in the present case accrued to the appellant before his retirement i.e suit filed by him was clearly time barred. The judgments referred to above cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates to issue of pensionary benefits wherein the Courts held that cause of pensionary benefit is recurring cause therefore there cannot be any delay. In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for stepping up of his pay/scale of pay on his deemed date of promotion at par with his junior counter seeking pay fixation at par with his jun therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the judgments by learned counsel for the appellant. 5 would be at par with his junior Prem Singh in the pay scale of e was also entitled to Admittedly, Prem Singh was junior to the appellant and he was under reserve category. The appellant . The first cause of action accrued to when Prem Singh who was junior to him, was 22.06.2004 seeking relief of at he was entitled to notional promotion as Head Master and pay fixation at par with his junior Prem Singh. The cause of action accrued in the year 2004 when he was promoted whereas he filed civil suit Limitation Act, the suit was required to be filed within 03 years from the date when the right first accrued. The cause of action in the present case accrued to the appellant before his retirement i.e suit filed by him was clearly time barred. The judgments referred to above cited by learned counsel for the appellant relates to issue of pensionary benefits wherein the Courts held that cause In the present case, the appellant filed a suit for stepping up of his pay/scale of pay on his deemed date of promotion at par with his junior counter seeking pay fixation at par with his junior, therefore, the facts of the present case are distinguishable to the judgments GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-2600-2022 CONCLUSION 12. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in decree dated 23.07.2019 as well as judgment and and Sessions Judge 13. Accordingly 14. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. 15. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. 29.09.2025 Gaurav Arora 22 (O&M) CONCLUSION In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in 23.07.2019 passed by learned Civil J judgment and decree dated 05.08.2022 udge, Rohtak and the same are upheld Accordingly, the present regular second appeal is Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in judgment and Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rohtak 05.08.2022 passed by Additional District upheld. the present regular second appeal is dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes : Yes 6 judgment and Rohtak istrict Parties are left to bear their own costs. Decree sheet be prepared GAURAV ARORA 2025.09.29 15:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document